[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260130050818-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:16:12 -0500
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Zhang Tianci <zhangtianci.1997@...edance.com>
Cc: jasowang@...hat.com, xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, eperezma@...hat.com,
marco.crivellari@...e.com, anders.roxell@...aro.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vduse: Fix msg list race in vduse_dev_read_iter
Thanks for the patch! yet something to improve:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 04:15:24PM +0800, Zhang Tianci wrote:
> Move the message to recv_list before dropping msg_lock and copying the
> request to userspace, avoiding a transient unlinked state that can race
> with the msg_sync timeout path. Roll back to send_list on copy failures.
this is not how you write commit messages, though.
describe the problem then how you fix it, please.
something like:
if msg_sync timeout triggers after a message has been removed
from send_list and before it was added to
recv_list, then .... as a result ....
To fix, move the message ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Tianci <zhangtianci.1997@...edance.com>
> Reviewed-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@...edance.com>
> ---
> drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> index ae357d014564c..b6a558341c06c 100644
> --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ static ssize_t vduse_dev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
> struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
> struct vduse_dev *dev = file->private_data;
> struct vduse_dev_msg *msg;
> + struct vduse_dev_request req;
> int size = sizeof(struct vduse_dev_request);
> ssize_t ret;
>
> @@ -339,7 +340,7 @@ static ssize_t vduse_dev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
>
> ret = -EAGAIN;
> if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> - goto unlock;
> + break;
>
> spin_unlock(&dev->msg_lock);
> ret = wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(dev->waitq,
> @@ -349,17 +350,30 @@ static ssize_t vduse_dev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
>
> spin_lock(&dev->msg_lock);
> }
> + if (!msg) {
> + spin_unlock(&dev->msg_lock);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + memcpy(&req, &msg->req, sizeof(req));
> + /*
> + * Move @msg to recv_list before dropping msg_lock.
> + * This avoids a window where @msg is detached from any list and
> + * vduse_dev_msg_sync() timeout path may operate on an unlinked node.
> + */
when standing by itself, not as part of the patch, this
comment confuses more than it clarifies.
> + vduse_enqueue_msg(&dev->recv_list, msg);
> spin_unlock(&dev->msg_lock);
> - ret = copy_to_iter(&msg->req, size, to);
> - spin_lock(&dev->msg_lock);
> +
> + ret = copy_to_iter(&req, size, to);
> if (ret != size) {
> + spin_lock(&dev->msg_lock);
> + /* Roll back: move msg back to send_list if still pending. */
> + msg = vduse_find_msg(&dev->recv_list, req.request_id);
Looks like this always scans the whole list.
Make a variant using list_for_each_entry_reverse maybe?
> + if (msg)
> + vduse_enqueue_msg(&dev->send_list, msg);
why is it not a concern that it will be at the tail of the send_list now,
reordering the messages?
> + spin_unlock(&dev->msg_lock);
> ret = -EFAULT;
> - vduse_enqueue_msg(&dev->send_list, msg);
> - goto unlock;
> }
> - vduse_enqueue_msg(&dev->recv_list, msg);
> -unlock:
> - spin_unlock(&dev->msg_lock);
>
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.39.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists